Poll question: Do the Presidential Debates Matter???

[Dr Wogga]

....or is the average viewer going to be like the NASCAR crowd - just tuning in to see if one of the candidates crash?

[GWB]

Gee, you could have posted an actual poll here.

[Dr Wogga]

....I'm guessing nobody really cares, except the news outlets hoping against hope that one of the candiates stumbles horribly

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I'll be one who says they do matter. Maybe not to me or to other political ideologues who know how they'll vote even before the candidates are chose, but there are a significant portion of people out there who honestly can go either way (as strange as that may seem), and the debates will have an effect on them.

If I watch them, it'll just be to confirm why I'm voting for Banarik.

[bisonbison]

I agree with Kurn. Except about voting libertarian.

[andyfox]

Not sure if it's true, but I heard Stephanopolis (sp?) say that Gore had a five point lead before the debates last year and ended up five behind after. That doesn't mean it was the debates that changed things, but it's certainly possible. Gore came across as very pedantic and stiff, Bush more relaxed and likable.

This year, there seems to be much more interest in politics, and people appear much more passionate. I really don't quite understand how people can be undecided at this point, but I suppose there are people who will use what they see in the debates to make up their minds.

So I'm with Kurn, I think the debates, especially the first one, will be important. Kerry's got to hit a few home runs without making too many outs if he wants to eat into Bush's lead.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll be one who says they do matter. Maybe not to me or to other political ideologues who know how they'll vote even before the candidates are chose, but there are a significant portion of people out there who honestly can go either way (as strange as that may seem), and the debates will have an effect on them.

If I watch them, it'll just be to confirm why I'm voting for Banarik.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just curious, why do you like badnarik?

Edjoomukate me!

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I'm a libertarian. Their platform most closely represents my political philosophy.

[pokerjo22]

Not as much as they should.

But they sure seemed to lose it for Gore last time. All the huffing, tutting and eye-rolling was pretty painful to watch.

My guy too:

http://www.lp.org/

If I only read poker forums I'd be convinced that Badnarik would walk this election.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
So I'm with Kurn, I think the debates, especially the first one, will be important.

[/ QUOTE ]

Debates have been very big factors, perhaps decisive, in a few Presidential elections.

1960: The Kennedy-Nixon debate(s) is famous because it was the first televised Presidential debate. John Kennedy was somewhat of an unknown. The primary process had just started in 1960 so Kennedy was a rare Presidential candidate who didn't already have some semblance of national stature. The debates allowed him to look Presidential and present the strong anti-communist image which was necessary.

Some say the debate swung the election in Kennedy's favor.

1964, 1968, 1972: No Presidential debates

1976: The Ford-Carter debates were contested in a tight election. Despite Watergate and the Vietnam war, Ford may have actually been able to win in '76 if it weren't for his unfathomable comment that there was no communist domination of easter Europe. That was a NASCAR crash of the highest magnitude.

1980: There was one Carter-Reagan debate (and one with Regan and 3rd party candidate Anderson). At the end of the debate, Reagan first spoke the line which crystalized the election in most people's minds- "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" Reagan never looked back.

1984: This election was Reagan's to lose and he almost did in the first of two debates against Walter Mondale. Reagan looked slow and confused at times- raising concerns about his age. In the second debate, he put those fears to rest. Reagan won 49 states.

1988: The Bush-Dukakis debates didn't generate many lasting memories other than Dukakis being asked what he would do if his wife were beaten, raped, etc. and Dukakis answered in a matter-of-fact tone that he didn't support the death penalty. This was the debate of missed opportunity. Dukakis didn't do anything to try to win the electin. The VP debate was more memorable.

1992: The Bush-Clinton-Perot debates solidified the swing vote's perception of the candidates. Clinton "felt your pain", Bush looked uninterested, and Perot was a novelty.

1996: The Clinton-Dole-Perot debates are surprisingly unmemorable. It was Clinton's election to lose and he didn't. What did Dole do?

2000: The Bush-Gore debates may have been decisive. Bush came across as both likeable and knowledgable (who was the foreign leader's name he said?). Gore looked like a big stiff you didn't want approaching you.

2004: ???

So, I'd say the debates mattered a lot in 1960, 1976, 1980, 1992, and 2000.

[IrishHand]

Yeah, I read in an article somewhere (wish I could remember) which noted that the pre-debate campaigning is mostly a propaganda war whereas at the debates, there's a much better chance of actually hearing substantive discussion on policy matters. After the excessive focus on 30 years ago by both sides, I've completely given up on paying any attention to either side. I will, however, watch the debates.

Irish

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
I've completely given up on paying any attention to either side. I will, however, watch the debates.


[/ QUOTE ]


I haven't been paying much attention myself lately but I'll watch the debates. Who is the better debater? I've heard that Bush is a master debater that cannot get knocked off of his message.

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
I've heard that Bush is a master debater that cannot get knocked off of his message.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. He's very well handled and trained to stay on message, and for some reason he is very likeable. So he doesn't make any mistakes, delivers a few of the real zingers that are written for him, and avoids any major crashes.

Kerry was an avid debater and a prosecutor. From what I understand his debate skills are supposed to be great if he can avoid having Bush knock him off his game, which he will try to do. Bush can't be knocked off his game because he's only halfway listening to Kerry anyway.

These debates are crucial for Kerry. Probably needs a big, big win to take the election.

NT

NT

[QuadsOverQuads]

To me? Not really.

Basically, as long as John Kerry is running against George W. Bush, John Kerry will get my vote. End of story.

Bush is, by far, the worst excuse for a president that this country has ever had, and the sooner he and his gang of liars, thugs and crooks are thrown out of office, the better. The damage they have done to this country will take a generation or more to repair.

q/q